Ξ January 26th, 2012 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
As most of us have read, Steve Job’s two slogans for Apple are: Think Different and Accept Uncertainty. Perhaps this too should be the two slogans for today’s Christianity if it expects to survive in the future. Now is the time for Christians to step outside traditional theological formulas and dogmas. Plausible? Maybe not yet. But I haven’t given up hope that it is possible.
Why is the Christian church, for the most part, still stuck in the first or at best fourth century? The world’s knowledge has increased exponentially since then. We no longer interpret epilepsy as demon possession. The "physical resusitation" of Jesus seems a little farfetched to many. It is increasingly difficult for even some conservative Christians to see Jesus ascending through the three-tiered universe on his way to God. That begs of us, where, actually, is God? How far does Jesus have to travel in this vast universe to reach heaven? Scientific knowledge also has led many to question just what is a miracle? What was the real purpose of the "virgin birth" now that it is historically well known that Egypt, the Greeks, Babylon, and others have their "virgin birth" myths as a way of distinguishing important births? If the only choicesa Christian has in dealing with either scripture or creed is to believe these words literally or not at all, then the future of Christianity is bleak. They can become “true believing fundamentalists” (and they come in both Protestant and Catholic varieties), or they can give up Christianity altogether. Is that a Christian’s only choices?
More and more modern men and women can no longer live their lives within the boundaries set by the traditional church, be it Catholic or Protestant. Many "believers" see the Christian church of today as an embarassment because of its antiquated beliefs, including it’s challenge of evolution, women’s rights, sexual orientation, and even racial equality, to mention just a few.
How can Christians learn to think outside the theological boxes of antiquity? The old anthropomorphic picture of God must go. We have to stop creating God in our image as we have done for thousands of years. Also, it begins, in my opinion, by dismissing the church’s definition of “theism” as an adequate definition of God, and to recognize that the opposite of theism is not “atheism.”
~some material paraphrased from an article by John Shelby Spong
Ξ January 24th, 2012 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
Sometime over the last 24 hours, the number of people visiting my blog reached 100,000! 100,000 is a number that is hard for me to conceive of. When I began this blog (this is my second blog) back in 2006, I never dreamed or imagined that kind of number of visits. I simply had something to say, not knowing if anyone would read the content found here or leave just as soon as they arrived. To tell the truth, it doesn’t matter to me if every visitor reads a post or two. These posts are my thoughts and the thoughts of people that I really respect (or heartly disagree with in some cases).
I would like to express my thanks to all my faithful readers, casual readers, first-timers, all of you for visiting my little corner of the blog world. I hope you come back. I hope you will take the time to express your own opinion by commenting.
I know that many blogs receive 100,000 visits in just a few days, but for me 100,000 in quite a number. Again, thanks!
Ξ January 23rd, 2012 | → 1 Comments | ∇ Life |
Blogger and author, Thom Stark has written an important book about inerrancy.The following is an excerpt from that book which I found to be particularly accurate. It discusses why inerrantists think the Bible is inerrant:
"…the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says that it is inerrant. This is of course the very definition of circular reasoning. It is a dogmatic claim, and not a rational one. It is not a claim that can be supported by any external evidence. It begins with the assumption that the Bible is a direct word from God, and then concludes that it must be a direct word from God because that is what it says about itself. To question the veracity of some Biblical text is seen as sheer arrogance. By denying that this particular text is accurate, I am setting myself up against God, declaring that I myself know more than God. But this is pure sophistry, and it quickly becomes a flagrant double standard: it is rebellious pride when one questions the Bible; it is common sense when one questions the Qur’an (or any other sacred text) . Yet the Qur’an similarly claims to be inerrant… (Chapter 3, page 56)
Later Thom discusses how inerrantists dismiss discrepancies (errors) as unharmonizeable "divine mysteries". What this says essentially is, "discrepancies notwithstanding, there are no discrepancies in the Bible". Observe the following from Stark’s book:
"….the inerrantists depend on a double standard. They refer to obvious discrepancies as ‘alleged’ discrepancies, or put the word ‘discrepancies’ in scare quotes, as if those who identify them as such are hostile prosecutors who should be laughed out of court. Yet they refuse to abide by the processes of the trial, disallowing the very possibility that such discrepancies might exist within their own text. Of course, when it comes to apparent discrepancies in the Qur’an or in the Book of Mormon, the normal prosecutorial standards are put back into effect; any ‘alleged’ discrepancy counts as evidence against the inerrancy of those texts. When Mormon apologists use the same harmonization tactics exercised by mainstream Christian apologists, Mormons are just evading the obvious in order to justify their rebellion against God and the truth of scripture. When Christians do it, they are being faithful. Errors notwithstanding, the Bible is obviously inerrant. (Chapter 3, Page 59)
Stark’s style of writing helps make a difficult subject easier to comprehend. His arguments, are well thought out and convincing. This is one of the most well argued cases against the inerrancy of the Bible that I have seen. I recommend this book heartily.
Ξ January 16th, 2012 | → 3 Comments | ∇ Life |
I find that many Christians today have a lust for certitude without the benefit of observational experience. This results in a clergy who often give the answer before they are asked the question.
~Unknown
Ξ January 12th, 2012 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
*The following is taken from an "Alternet.com" article, by Rob Boston. It is Part 2 of a series of 2 posts.
3. Thomas Jefferson. It’s almost impossible to define Jefferson’s subtle religious views in a few words. As he once put it, “I am a sect by myself, as far as I know.” But one thing is clear: His skepticism of traditional Christianity is well established. Our third president did not believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, original sin and other core Christian doctrines. He was hostile to many conservative Christian clerics, whom he believed had perverted the teachings of that faith.
Jefferson once famously observed to Adams, “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”
Although not an orthodox Christian, Jefferson admired Jesus as a moral teacher. In one of his most unusual acts, Jefferson edited the New Testament, cutting away the stories of miracles and divinity and leaving behind a very human Jesus, whose teachings Jefferson found “sublime.” This “Jefferson Bible” is a remarkable document – and it would ensure his political defeat today. (Imagine the TV commercials the Religious Right would run: Thomas Jefferson hates Jesus! He mutilates Bibles!)
Jefferson was confident that a coolly rational form of religion would take root in the fertile intellectual soil of America. He once predicted that just about everyone would become Unitarian. (Despite his many talents, the man was no prophet.)
Jefferson took political stands that would infuriate today’s Religious Right and ensure that they would work to defeat him. He refused to issue proclamations calling for days of prayer and fasting, saying that such religious duties were no part of the chief executive’s job. His assertion that the First Amendment erects a “wall of separation between church and state” still rankles the Religious Right today.
4. James Madison. Jefferson’s close ally would be similarly unelectable today. Madison is perhaps the most enigmatic of all the founders when it comes to religion. To this day, scholars still debate his religious views.
Nominally Anglican, Madison, some of his biographers believe, was really a Deist. He went through a period of enthusiasm for Christianity as a young man, but this seems to have faded. Unlike many of today’s politicians, who eagerly wear religion on their sleeves and brag about the ways their faith will guide their policy decisions, Madison was notoriously reluctant to talk publicly about his religious beliefs.
Madison was perhaps the strictest church-state separationist among the founders, taking stands that make the ACLU look like a bunch of pikers. He opposed government-paid chaplains in Congress and in the military. As president, Madison rejected a proposed census because it involved counting people by profession. For the government to count the clergy, Madison said, would violate the First Amendment.
Madison, who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, also opposed government-issued prayer proclamations. He issued a few during the War of 1812 at the insistence of Congress but later concluded that his actions had been unconstitutional. As president, he vetoed legislation granting federal land to a church and a plan to have a church in Washington care for the poor through a largely symbolic charter. In both cases, he cited the First Amendment. One can hear the commercials now: "James Madison is an anti-religious fanatic. He even opposes prayer proclamations during time of war."
5. Thomas Paine. Paine never held elective office, but he played an important role as a pamphleteer whose stirring words helped rally Americans to independence. Washington ordered that Paine’s pamphlet “The American Crisis” be read aloud to the Continental Army as a morale booster on Dec. 23, 1776. “Common Sense” was similarly popular with the people. These seminal documents were crucial to winning over the public to the side of independence.
So Paine’s a hero, right? He was also a radical Deist whose later work, The Age of Reason, still infuriates fundamentalists. In the tome, Paine attacked institutionalized religion and all of the major tenets of Christianity. He rejected prophecies and miracles and called on readers to embrace reason. The Bible, Paine asserted, can in no way be infallible. He called the god of the Old Testament “wicked” and the entire Bible “the pretended word of God.” (There go the Red States!)
What can we learn from this? Americans have the right to reject candidates for any reason, including their religious beliefs. But they ought to think twice before tossing someone aside just because he or she is skeptical of orthodox Christianity. After all, that description includes some of our nation’s greatest leaders.
*This article was taken from "Alternet.com". It was written by Rob Boston.
Ξ January 12th, 2012 | → 0 Comments | ∇ Life |
*The following is taken from an "Alternet.com" article, by Rob Boston
To hear the Religious Right tell it, men like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were 18th-century versions of Jerry Falwell in powdered wigs and stockings. Nothing could be further from the truth.
There was a time when Americans voted for candidates who were skeptical of core concepts of Christianity like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth. The question is, could any of them get elected today? The sad answer is probably not.
Here are five founding fathers whose views on religion would most likely doom them to defeat today:
1. George Washington. The father of our country was nominally an Anglican but seemed more at home with Deism. The language of the Deists sounds odd to today’s ears because it’s a theological system of thought that has fallen out of favor. Desists believed in God but didn’t necessarily see him as active in human affairs. The god of the Deists was a god of first cause. He set things in motion and then stepped back.
Washington often employed Deistic terms. His god was a “supreme architect” of the universe. Washington saw religion as necessary for good moral behavior but didn’t necessarily accept all Christian dogma. He seemed to have a special gripe against communion and would usually leave services before it was offered.
Washington was widely tolerant of other beliefs. He is the author of one of the great classics of religious liberty – the letter to Touro Synagogue (1790). In this letter, Washington assured America’s Jews that they would enjoy complete religious liberty in America; not mere toleration in an officially “Christian” nation. He outlines a vision of a multi-faith society where all are free.
“The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation,” wrote Washington. “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.”
Stories of Washington’s deep religiosity, such as tales of him praying in the snow at Valley Forge, can be ignored. They are pious legends invented after his death.
2. John Adams. The man who followed Washington in office was a Unitarian, although he was raised a Congregationalist and never officially left that church. Adams rejected belief in the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, core concepts of Christian dogma. In his personal writings, Adams makes it clear that he considered some Christian dogma to be incomprehensible.
In February 1756, Adams wrote in his diary about a discussion he had had with a man named Major Greene. Greene was a devout Christian who sought to persuade Adams to adopt conservative Christian views. The two argued over the divinity of Jesus and the Trinity. Questioned on the matter of Jesus’ divinity, Greene fell back on an old standby: some matters of theology are too complex and mysterious for we puny humans to understand.
Adams was not impressed. In his diary he wrote, “Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”
As president, Adams signed the famous Treaty of Tripoli, which boldly stated, “[T]he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion….”
*Continued~
Ξ January 10th, 2012 | → 5 Comments | ∇ Life |
The older I get, the more I come to realize how very little I "know". I remember when as a conservative evangelical, I found comfort in thinking that I "knew" the answers that I needed to know. About ten years ago, I discovered that the security, that knowing all the right answers brought, had slowly began to disappear.
That was the occasion for me to begin a quest to once again bring back that feeling of security. Since I had a educational background, I felt that finding my lost security could be done by reading, research, and study. I wanted to know how I could lose what I seemingly had. I had been in church all my life. I had "given my life to Jesus". I had been a deacon in my church for 17+ years. How could the feeling of security, in a short time, abandon me. As I studied, I found that life was not as I believed, not as I had been told or led to believe. God wasn’t the anthropomorphic being I had always pictured, living somewhere beyond the pale, keeping a watchful eye on us all, making sure things went as planned for those who were "his" and taking notes in his big book detailing each infraction of his rules and regulations by all people, especially those who didn’t believe the things they should.
It was obvious to me back then, that the world was divided into two groups, those headed to heaven, because they acquiesced to the rules set down by their particular group (incidentally, those groups didn’t always agree on the rules, so the line between each was blurred. How confusing!), and those headed for perdition (hell by most definitions). This dualism of us vs them was one of the factors that finally made me question what I had believed for so long. It just didn’t seem right. It didn’t seem fair. God was supposed to be perfect, righteous, and fair. The more I studied and researched, the less God seemed to possess those characteristics I had always been taught that he possessed; at least the God I that I had had presented to me for so long.
It became quite evident as I continued my journey that the more I read, studied, and researched, the less I knew for certain about God. That was not the way it was supposed to be. The more you study, research, and read, the more knowledge of God you should discover. I found it to be quite the opposite. I now know less for certain than I ever have at any time in my life.
What does that say to me? It says to me that humankind is very limited as to what we can know about "the ground of all being" (God). I chose this appellation for that which in the past I called God for a good reason. The term God is very limiting. To most people it conjures up an image. An image that, for me, that has become quite negative in nature. I do not picture God in the old religious images of the past. In fact, I try not to picture God at all, hence the terminology that I have chosen here of "the ground of all being". I don’t think any of us have a clue as to what "God" is. How do you describe the ineffable, transcendent, indescribable? I don’t think we can. The minute we begin to try to do this, we limit, we encapsulate, the ineffable, and that is not acceptable.
There are some things that we humans will probably never know for certain while here in this plane; the true nature of the transcendent is one of them. Does this mean we shouldn’t even try? No, it doesn’t. But it does tell us that when we arrive at what seems to be certainly, we better take a step back and realize certainty is as inconceivable, indefinable, incogitable as is "the ground of all being". When we think we have God pegged, we should quickly become humble enough to realize we know little………very little.
Ξ December 20th, 2011 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
"Pleasure is always derived from something outside you, whereas joy arises from within"
~Eckart Tolle
May you find true joy this holiday season…
Ξ December 15th, 2011 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
One night I had a wondrous dream,
One set of footprints there was seen,
The footprints of my precious Lord,
But mine were not along the shore.
But then some strange prints appeared,
And I asked the Lord, “What have we here?”
Those prints are large and round and neat,
“But Lord, they are too big for feet.”
“My child,” He said in somber tones,
“For miles I carried you along.
I challenged you to walk in faith,
But you refused and made me wait.”
“You disobeyed, you would not grow,
The walk of faith, you would not know,
So I got tired, I got fed up,
And there I dropped you on your butt.”
“Because in life, there comes a time,
When one must fight, and one must climb,
When one must rise and take a stand,
Or leave their butt prints in the sand.”
~borrowed from Dr. James Grath’s site, "Exploring Our Matrix"
– author unknown
Ξ December 13th, 2011 | → 2 Comments | ∇ Life |
"The Bible says it, I interpret it, I believe my interpretation, and that settles it."
~A Fundamentalist
*borrowed from Brian McClaren
Next Page »
Stumble it!
